The all-electric car—is Mitsubishi’s “green” city car worth the cash?

In which we drive a tiny i-MiEV and look down on Prius hybrid owners.

Since the 1880s, the automobile and the internal combustion engine have shared a linked fate. The very earliest horseless carriages relied on other methods (obviously) for generating power, but once Karl Benz put a four stroke gasoline engine into a four wheel chassis, the template for the next 130+ years was set.

Henry Ford put his Model T into mass production in 1908 and suddenly the automobile was no longer the preserve of the Edwardian one percent. The adoption of the car by all sectors of society, first in the US and then across the world, has had a profound impact on our way of life. Much of it is overwhelmingly positive, but it hasn't all been good. Our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels in particular may well be our undoing, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are skyrocketing, profoundly altering our climate.

Image courtesy of Mitsubishi

As a result, car manufacturers have been looking at alternatives to the traditional way of doing things. We've seen various alternatives appear on the roads in recent years—most commonly hybrid powertrains that couple internal combustion engines with electric motors. But hybrids still emit carbon dioxide from their exhausts, so some argue that purely electric cars are the truly responsible route to 21st century motoring.

Examples of this breed are becoming slightly more common on the road. After General Motors' misstep with the EV-1, Tesla came along and made electric cars sexy with its Lotus-based Roadster. Now companies like Mitsubishi and Nissan offer electric cars for the rest of us.

Mitsubishi's contender is the i-MiEV, an electric car based on the Mitsubishi i (which is a "kei car" sold in the UK, Asia, and other right-hand drive markets that buy Japanese sub-subcompacts). Being nice people, the Mitsubishi folks kindly lent me one for a few days. So what's it like? And could it replace your current commute vehicle?

The aesthetics

The i-MiEV looks unlike almost anything else on the roads. A distinctive "one-box" shape with a wheel at each corner, it's like a mini people carrier. The i-MiEV is a little longer and little wider than the i sold abroad—perhaps to better suit a nation with a bit of a weight problem.

Inside, you sit quite high up, with the car's batteries below the floor. This provides a couple of advantages: the car has a very low center of gravity (CoG) and a it boasts a commanding SUV-like view out over traffic. A particularly nice touch is the window underneath the A pillar, which comes in very handy when parking.

The i-MiEV's cabin. The leather wheel and shifter are nice, but the rest of it definitely built to a price.

Image courtesy of Mitsubishi

It's not all gravy on the inside, though. The i-MiEV's roots are a cheap and cheerful city car. If it came with a three cylinder petrol engine, you wouldn't expect to pay more than $10,000 for it. Consequently, the fit and fittings really are quite basic. The model we tested was the SE spec, so it came with a hard drive-based navigation system, reversing camera, USB port, and Bluetooth, as well as a leather steering wheel and shift lever. Otherwise the cabin is rather spartan, the plastics are hard and shiny, and the seats are rather basic. You might be paying most of the sticker price for the electric motor and batteries under the floor, but you can buy a Chevy Volt for not much more. (Having spent some time in both, I know where I'd rather idle away my commute.) The cargo space in the rear isn't vast either—slightly more than a Miata, a bit less than Volt.

Still, your hands will spend most of their time with the leather wheel, and that feels good at hand. It has nicely placed controls for the hi-fi and phone, and generally good ergonomics. The dash is centered around a large dial, above and to the left is the battery gauge and transmission display, with the mileage to the right.

In a conventional car, you'd expect the dial to be the rev counter or speedometer. Here, it's separated into three segments: charge, eco, and power. When the needle is in "charge," the i-MiEV is recovering energy through the motor, either because you're braking or coasting (remember, an electric motor in reverse is a generator). When "eco" is showing, you're being most sympathetic to your battery and maximizing range. "Power" should be fairly obvious.

The i-MiEV's dash. Keep the needle in the green or the blue, otherwise why bother?

Image courtesy of Mitsubishi

About that powertrain: the i-MiEV has a 66 bhp motor driving the rear wheels. It doesn't sound high—especially considering that it weighs around 3,300 lbs in SE trim—but, like a diesel, the more important figure is the torque output. Torque is pretty good at 145 lb-ft, and almost all of that is available straight away. Electric motors, unlike internal combustion engines, make almost all of their torque even at very low revs.

The shifter has the look of a conventional automatic but, this being an electric car, there's no need for gears as such. Instead, there are three different modes of forward propulsion. Drive is the most straightforward and delivers the most power. Eco softens throttle response and increases energy regeneration, and Braking maximizes energy recovery. As such, D is for going up hills, merging onto freeways, and general hooning. Eco is for everyday driving; B is best left for going downhill.

The driving experience

Turn the key and the dash lights up, coupled with an audio chime; you're ready to go. It's a little disconcerting not to hear any sort of noise from an engine, something that the occasional surprised pedestrian would probably agree with.

Image courtesy of Mitsubishi

Even in Eco, the i-MiEV is relatively peppy off the line, with good traction from the rear wheels. Handling isn't bad, courtesy of that low CoG, but the special low rolling resistance tires don't have a huge amount of grip. You'll want to take those sweeping on-ramps with a degree of respect for them, rather than flat out.

Then again, driving the i-MiEV flat out sort of defeats the point. It's based on a city car, and it's at home driving around town, not carving canyons or clipping cones at an autocross. And of course, the harder you drive, the shorter your range.

No, with the i-MiEV it makes more sense to leave it in Eco and to drive around sedately, keeping the needle pegged in the Eco zone. In this regard it's quite similar to the Volt, which also encourages the driver to put economy ahead of speed by gamifying the driving experience. Despite being a bit of a speed demon normally, I found myself feeling quite guilty when the needle edged into the "power" band. The driving position was a bit of a hindrance in this regard, as I found it hard to keep an eye on the road and see the dial in my peripherals at the same time. Taller drivers probably wouldn't have that issue, though.

225 Reader Comments

The type of person who is willing to spend $30-$40k on what is essentially an "economy" car has a bit of money to throw around. You obviously aren't looking to recoup the money with fuel savings versus getting a Fiesta. The technology isn't at a point, yet, that these things are cheap enough to be attractive to an average consumer. Why don't Mitsubishi or Chevy throw in an extra $5k and bring the interiors up to something worth that price tag?

What is it about electric car discussions that bring all the crazies out of the woodwork?

Well aside from the political talk (what thread doesn't eventually talk politics), the conversation has been about, is it a viable alternative, broken along various lines, including financial, practical, environmental? There's even, multiple alternatives, e.g. full-electric, hybrids. Couple all that with both the newness, and ever-changing landscape, things can get a bit messy.

What is it about electric car discussions that bring all the crazies out of the woodwork?

Well aside from the political talk (what thread doesn't eventually talk politics), the conversation has been about, is it a viable alternative, broken along various lines, including financial, practical, environmental? There's even, multiple alternatives, e.g. full-electric, hybrids. Couple all that with both the newness, and ever-changing landscape, things can get a bit messy.

I think that the better question is: When will they truly be a viable alternative?

The first ICE cars were not a viable alternative to horses for most people, and it took a few generations before the infrastructure was widespread and the cars themselves matured to a point where they made sense for everyday people to own. I think that electric cars are in a similar place right now-- for some people it makes sense to own an electric motorcycle, Leaf, Volt, or Tesla. For most people it probably doesn't.

I'd love to see where the auto industry experts expect to see EVs in 2013,'14,'15, and beyond so that I could get a good picture of when they'll come into that magical $25k price with 200+ mile range that would make them a better solution to everyday commuting. I'd love to know if there are plans to put banks of chargers in shopping mall parking lots or hourly parking structures.

The manufacturers surely have some detailed roadmaps and I would bet that the inflection points on the accompanying sales forecasts are at similar levels of technology and price amongst them. I would love to know where those points are.

I'd love to see where the auto industry experts expect to see EVs in 2013,'14,'15,...

There are many things, and many are not simple, to be 'finished' before what the dreams are, become real.

Once, in the early days of 'horseless carriages,' when distances were shorter (roads were not 'great') and other expectations of vehicles was not speeding, Electrics were not at all uncommon. Edison did an Iron Battery, that worked well. Others came to try to replace, but...

Gasoline became a powerful, inexpensive and DEPENDABLE source of power.

Today, I read hundreds of proposed 'solutions' to the problems of bringing good electrics back.

I notice, almost every time, the following works. "Might" "Maybe" "Possibly" etc. for how soundly they are based in confidence... Not at all.

I get the impression the 'developers' are only looking for the next Solindra Windfall.

With The new developments in even the Iron/Phosphate Battery, Graphene and other materials coming into play...

Maybe (one of them words) Putting the magnets on the outer orbit of the generator (as is being done in some winmills. Putting them inboard of the disk rotors...

More power generation, More storage capacity, Larger vehicular size (getting rid of the clown car sizes)...

You might have a realistic vehicle developed that people might really want to try...perhaps.

Tesla's idea of 'radio beaming energy' even from multiple generation stations, if properly developed, without tree huggers going off the deep end for the environmental noises...maybe.

There needs to be a cohesive development, based in real and doable science, with a lot fewer hands out for the dole, and thinking caps on for the real possibility.

The first one to THAT line, wins,.

It is not happening, at this time. Look at what is out there, if you doubt that.

You don't need the tree hugger market, to make this work.

You need the NASCAR crowd, and their type of crowd (car nuts) wanting it.

There are some real cars thought of, or in development that fill one or more areas... But, not yet fully in the mix.

As I said...

I am not against Electrics, or even the Steam Engine Cars...

I am against the idea that the government can force us to by crap, just because they say so.

(The gas engine destroyed the Steam Engine too ( http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/jay-leno/vintage/jay-leno-and-his-doble-steam-cars[url][/url] )... mostly because by the time they almost had it right... the gasoline engine worked better, cheaper, and FDR was running the depression for 5 years longer than needed (his people said it first... not me) Do your own search on [url]FDR caused depression to last longer[/url] In histories and texts, most of his involved staff stated it publicly

You need the NASCAR crowd, and their type of crowd (car nuts) wanting it.

As much as I hate the stereotype, this is spot-on correct. A detailed writeup of when people speculate that that will occur is what I'd love to see.

I don't see the Prius needing the NASCAR crowd, so why would an Electric Car?

The real issue is getting down to Prius like prices. Once the price is affordable, they will sell like crazy from networking, once people see their neighbor in a nearly maintenance free car, that you never waste anytime driving to the gas station, fill up for pennies at home and just works all the time, it will be the perfect commuter car.

The "I need a REAL car for road trips" argument evaporates when you realize most households are multicar, so you can take the minivan on road-trips (which you would probably do anyway).

It is really all down to price and battery prices are moving steadily down, so it is coming. Thankfully we have early adopters to keep it going while the price drops toward mass adoption.

1) contrary to what was said about me, I am not a nut case............2) Having studied history, war, mistakes galore... and followed various greedy nutcases doing what is being done again... I thought I might not only agree with you, but state reasons and options from my perspective.3) Where I live, and with physical limitations, I am no longer a motorcycle nut case, sports car nut case (a little computer nutcase never hurt anyone)...4) I look at the money going to 'friends' and 'friends of friends' out of our great great grand kids pockets...5) for friends of friends of the Fiskar car.. etc.

It bothers me. I am only a dabbler in science and technology. With what happened to certain real sciences, by holier than thou nutcases... too much real technology, in development, has gone underground, or out of the country.

Real potentials go begging, because friends of friends get the bucks.

My simple idea of the steam car (It is do-able, right now) with the 'instant water heaters gas or electric), also generating electricity to store for batteries...

I have not the skills, but, I am aware it is do-able, and wish someone luck if they try.

With electricity, there is voltage to kill, if you have an accident.With steam, under pressure and hot, you have burns if there is an accident.With gas or diesel you have fire.

Earlier, when I stated gas killed steam, I should have stated 'for cars'... Steam is still powering atomic powered ships, the reactors generating the heat for the water.

And before some tree-hugging goofball says I want atomic cars... stow it. That is not what I said, but, expect the problem.

Mostly, I did not want the impression, I do not see options or other options, in gas/diesel, electric or steam. I don't see electric near mature enough.

Please explain to me how closing down the auto & trucking industries will "dramatically improve both the environment and the quality of the lives of those living in it

It would improve the quality of life of those living in it because they would be alive and uninjured instead of dead or injured at the rate of, and why does no-one take this seriously,

"Approximately 1.3 million people die each year on the world's roads, and between 20 and 50 million sustain non-fatal injuries. "

Do you realise the implications of this? This is a Holocaust every five years. And that is not counting the injured. 20-50 million sustain non-fatal injuries, and all the green movement can think of to do about it is change the power source?

The problem with cars is not that they are contributing to global warming. The problem is they are killing and injuring people in large numbers. The reason is not how they are powered. The reason is that the transport system which consists of roads on which people drive wrapped in half a ton or more of metal is going to kill people no matter what the power source. So if we replace the power source with one that puts out somewhat less CO2, the sole result will be that we will keep on killing the same number of people, while emitting less CO2. Which was not the problem in the first place.

Anyone with any regard for life and quality of life would not be advocating the replacement of the power source, but for a replacement of the transport system that is killing and maiming so many. As long as the green movement cannot get its priorities in order on such an obvious matter, who can take it seriously?

Now if only the power used to charge the battery was also not hydrocarbons...

^^THIS

I think everyone really needs to seriously think about the fact that electricity does not fall from the sky.

I'll bet it's easier and cheaper for power companies to switch generation methods / retire plants when something better comes along, than for millions of individuals to scrap their vehicles to make the same switch.

I'll bet it's easier and cheaper for power companies to switch generation methods / retire plants when something better comes along, than for millions of individuals to scrap their vehicles to make the same switch.

It takes about 20 years to build a power plant. Longer, since most are giving up with all the tree huggers and lawyers suing until the cows come home.

In a democracy, majority rules (or lacking a majority, plurality). Whatever gets the most votes wins. Except for in the US Senate, where you need 60% of the votes to do anything.

My, my... A super majority is not needed to pass all bills in the Senate. Certain types of bills need it...

But not all.

I am sorry the spelling error(s)... but, then, I know history a little better than my old finger (and some spell checkers) know grammar.

Just so you are straight on this, Only Majority votes win on the floor, when passing bills, in Congress (a democracy in itself). In the Senate, that vote for majority, might be the Vice President.

Republics amends laws as they see fit, on pluralities (sometimes yes, sometimes not)

A supermajority is needed to end filibusters. And Republicans made it a rule to prevent anything they disliked by filibustering it (for those who do t know what that means, it essentially meant that the Republicans kept talking indefinitely, so that bills never came to a vote. The nicest part of the filibuster is that in today's senate, you don't even need to be present in the Senate and talk to filibuster. You can essentially just say I am filibustering and go campaign for votes, and no business can be conducted unless you find 60% votes to end the filibuster. )

A supermajority is needed to end filibusters. And Republicans made it a rule to prevent anything they disliked by filibustering it (for those who do t know what that means, it essentially meant that the Republicans kept talking indefinitely, so that bills never came to a vote. The nicest part of the filibuster is that in today's senate, you don't even need to be present in the Senate and talk to filibuster. You can essentially just say I am filibustering and go campaign for votes, and no business can be conducted unless you find 60% votes to end the filibuster. )

So, You and others are intimating, since 2006 the Republicans have been filibustering the house and senate. Coming back at you... b.s.

If such were the case, Obamanationcare would still be in the Senate.

You and others are intimating that the Republicans are holding the Budget from passage. B.S.!

Reid and Pelosi have, most of the time, held all budgets to stop passage, in one form or the other.

Passing them would show how bad the fiscal situation is. The media, if the Republicans take over in 2013, will immediately blame the Republicans.

How can I say that? The day after Ronald Regan was elected, In Complete DNC coordination, the deadstream media, blamed Regan for the budget problems, and he was only the President elect (and knew there was no office set up for that position.

I hate, that what most people in the US think they know as fact, is just BS from the DNC, poured from the waste pipes of the media

Obama has inherited the same tax rates which do not meet US government expenditures. The Republicans in the Congress have blocked all efforts to increase taxes even on the very wealthy. The Republicans in the House of Representatives cannot come up with a budget which is even close to being balanced. The responsibility or the US budget mess falls mainly on the Republican Party.

I love people who think the media history (as given to the media by the dnc) is accurate...

Most of what was said, is not...

1) The control of the HOUSE AND SENATE was held by the DNC after the '06 elections. With that being the case, The DNC has not even tried to pass a budget for over 1000 days. The House Originates All funding bills. The House bills have all died under the DEMOCRAT Controlled Senate Under the Tyrany of Harry, for over 1,000 days, even though, by law, they have to have a budget...

It is not the Republicans (most of which I do not support), that are doing this.

Please I don't like the lies you spouted, under the thinking you were telling the truth. You need to know history, not 'their story.'

You should read what happened to Argentina in the 1st 25 years of the last century...

I only want my country back... and every one paying full price for electric cars (instead of taxpayers)

I don't need to read about Argentina. All I need to see/read is Fox News and I know what the Republican party is up to.

It is a fact that the US budget was pretty much balanced when George W. Bush took office. Sorry you can't accept that reality.

As for budget policies, The Republicans before 2006 had control of the House, Senate and the presidency. And they set in motion the tax and spending policies which we still have today which leads to massive deficits.

As for government since 2006, there has been gridlock. But the Republican fiscal bills would not come close to balancing the US budget even if they did pass the Senate.

Obama has inherited the same tax rates which do not meet US government expenditures. The Republicans in the Congress have blocked all efforts to increase taxes even on the very wealthy. The Republicans in the House of Representatives cannot come up with a budget which is even close to being balanced. The responsibility or the US budget mess falls mainly on the Republican Party.

I love people who think the media history (as given to the media by the dnc) is accurate...

Most of what was said, is not...

1) The control of the HOUSE AND SENATE was held by the DNC after the '06 elections. With that being the case, The DNC has not even tried to pass a budget for over 1000 days. The House Originates All funding bills. The House bills have all died under the DEMOCRAT Controlled Senate Under the Tyrany of Harry, for over 1,000 days, even though, by law, they have to have a budget...

It is not the Republicans (most of which I do not support), that are doing this.

Please I don't like the lies you spouted, under the thinking you were telling the truth. You need to know history, not 'their story.'

You should read what happened to Argentina in the 1st 25 years of the last century...

I only want my country back... and every one paying full price for electric cars (instead of taxpayers)

I don't need to read about Argentina. All I need to see/read is Fox News and I know what the Republican party is up to.

It is a fact that the US budget was pretty much balanced when George W. Bush took office. Sorry you can't accept that reality.

As for budget policies, The Republicans before 2006 had control of the House, Senate and the presidency. And they set in motion the tax and spending policies which we still have today which leads to massive deficits.

As for government since 2006, there has been gridlock. But the Republican fiscal bills would not come close to balancing the US budget even if they did pass the Senate.

Not to mentioning spearheading the destruction of the Dodd-Frank Act and essentially turning world financial markets into turmoil. Not to mention the same people who were blatantly and maliciously responsible and not held responsible for their crimes are going ahead causing damage in Greece.

And continue to be asserting their multinational dominance and purposefully causing world disasters all for financial gain. All by unfounded powers provided by Federal Reserve Bank and finally with the repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act.

And every time someone insults the blatant Republican lunacy, they spout about some 'liberal mumbo jumbo'. Well here is a stick for you whiny bastards.

The Democrats are just an inch lower scum. Their lack of oversight and blatant abuse of not just constitutional rights, but human rights as well is a disgrace. All pioneered of course by the same clowns whom seem to represent different "sides" of the political spectrum but they're all the same suit.

Now I cannot stand either sides, but if you look at the Republican grand stand to block anything period and cause a stand still in the Senate and Congress; how could anything get done. Now imagine that somehow one or few with some integrity(Rep. or Dem. or Third Party :?) sneak in but will face nothing but a wall of rejection of anything productive and useful. Because the billionaire funded republicans while distracting everyone from real issues like economy, war, debt, corruption etc, etc. for asinine ones like gay marriage, birth control and abortion will brainwash and continue destroy everything.

There is no rule of law there is no solution, and it's not even the politicians who are really at fault here. It's the people that are here, somehow everywhere(and it's all echoed and feedback through this media vitriol shit machine) spouting dumbfounded arrogant views brainwashed by soundbites from monkey level intelligence news agencies like Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. And have somehow allowed them to be scholars of law and politics, by just making it up along the way.

Please explain to me how closing down the auto & trucking industries will "dramatically improve both the environment and the quality of the lives of those living in it

It would improve the quality of life of those living in it because they would be alive and uninjured instead of dead or injured at the rate of, and why does no-one take this seriously,

"Approximately 1.3 million people die each year on the world's roads, and between 20 and 50 million sustain non-fatal injuries. "

Do you realise the implications of this? This is a Holocaust every five years. And that is not counting the injured. 20-50 million sustain non-fatal injuries, and all the green movement can think of to do about it is change the power source?

The problem with cars is not that they are contributing to global warming. The problem is they are killing and injuring people in large numbers. The reason is not how they are powered. The reason is that the transport system which consists of roads on which people drive wrapped in half a ton or more of metal is going to kill people no matter what the power source. So if we replace the power source with one that puts out somewhat less CO2, the sole result will be that we will keep on killing the same number of people, while emitting less CO2. Which was not the problem in the first place.

Anyone with any regard for life and quality of life would not be advocating the replacement of the power source, but for a replacement of the transport system that is killing and maiming so many. As long as the green movement cannot get its priorities in order on such an obvious matter, who can take it seriously?

You talk about being taken seriously with a post like this? Seriously?

Comparing car manufacturers to Hitler?

I guess you want to close McDonalds, Burger King, Lays et.al. too, since obesity kills a lot too. And shut down the tobacco companies all together. Not to mention Budweiser and the other alcohol suppliers (oh wait, that was already tried).

The "I need a REAL car for road trips" argument evaporates when you realize most households are multicar, so you can take the minivan on road-trips (which you would probably do anyway).

Isn't the multicar, minivan/SUV-for-long-trips thing exactly what you want to move people away from, though?

Not me, I am realist.

People will be driving cars running on liquid fuels and the Internal combustion Engine for the rest of my life. EVs will be rich part of the mix.

I was talking about the usage pattern, not the fuels thing. What you don't really want is for people to feel like they're justifying their guzzler road trip mobiles by driving their (single-occupancy) EVs to work.

Also, the attraction of a hybrid (or plug-in hybrid) right now is that you can use it for city driving with pretty good results but still get its benefit on longer trips. It's a big minus for a lot of people if your economy car gets you exactly zero benefit for trips outside the city.

Tarkovsky wrote:

You only drive ten minutes to work?

Why on earth aren't you cycling?

Some people also have to carry stuff to work, drop off their kids along the way, go places during the day from work, etc. etc.

I live in a house with a garage. I could easily make use of an electric car. As an electrical engineer and lefty greenie, I would love it. However, it still doesn't quite make sense for me. One has to drive sufficient miles per year to earn back the upfront cost premium. I work from home and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. We both do short trips around our local area. Not enough miles for the current electric cars to work out financially. Maybe I should give more value to the lack of tailpipe emissions and dependence on foreign oil. However, I also love to drive. I refuse to drive a dog-slow car, even if it would save the planet. A few years ago, I really thought my next car would be a Prius. Then I drove one. OMG what a dog. And why did they have to make a weird-ass, complicated (to me) start-up procedure? Plus, all those freaks out there intentionally driving dog slow just to increase their MPG annoy the crap out of me. Why didn't you do that when you had a regular car? Get out of the way.

I will keep watching the economics of the Tesla sedan. It might one day be right for me.

Having a century-plus historical record as one of the most environmentally damaging corporations in existence, I don't think I could reconcile the daily dichotomy of driving a so-called green vehicle manufactured by Mitsubishi.

I guess you want to close McDonalds, Burger King, Lays et.al. too, since obesity kills a lot too. And shut down the tobacco companies all together. Not to mention Budweiser and the other alcohol suppliers (oh wait, that was already tried).

Talk about a nut job.

I am not comparing the car manufacturers to Hitler. Not at all. I am simply pointing out that the system of transport we have at the moment results in 1.3 million people a year dying in car accidents. To get some idea of the scale of this disaster, I invoked the scale of another criminal disaster causing loss of life, and pointed out that every five years, the car kills as many people. Not mentioning the injuries.

The point I am making is that outrage is the correct and reasonable reaction to this. Just as it is to the Holocaust, or to the fatalities of WWI and WWII. I am pointing out that we are talking about a disaster of this order. Of the order of the Black Death, the Soviet era purges and Gulag.

And that to think the main problem with current cars is their power source is like wanting to keep fighting wars, with weapons of equivalent lethality, but powered with a different technology or brand of explosive.

As to the other comparisons you make, it is a serious question whether we should be permitting the sale and promotion of an addictive and lethal drug with pretty much no beneficial uses, namely tobacco. Its very doubtful whether the obesity epidemic is caused by the vendors of fast food. To act against them would be to commit precisely the same idiotic error as substituting power supplies in a lethal transport method.

The obesity epidemic is likely due not to McDonalds etc, but due to fructose consumption mostly in concealed form. We probably should do something about that, but there is no reason to close McDonalds. That would have no effect whatever on fructose consumption.

You talk about being taken seriously with a post like this? Seriously?Comparing car manufacturers to Hitler?I guess you want to close McDonalds, Burger King, Lays et.al. too, since obesity kills a lot too. And shut down the tobacco companies all together. Not to mention Budweiser and the other alcohol suppliers (oh wait, that was already tried).Talk about a nut job.

Then

Ally said:

Quote:

As to the other comparisons you make, it is a serious question whether we should be permitting the sale and promotion of an addictive and lethal drug with pretty much no beneficial uses, namely tobacco. Its very doubtful whether the obesity epidemic is caused by the vendors of fast food. To act against them would be to commit precisely the same idiotic error as substituting power supplies in a lethal transport method.The obesity epidemic is likely due not to McDonalds etc, but due to fructose consumption mostly in concealed form. We probably should do something about that, but there is no reason to close McDonalds. That would have no effect whatever on fructose consumption.

There is room for a good compromise.

Skinny people are a health risk too. But their health problems are rarely, if ever cited by deadstream media.

People using manipulated data, from under-qualified 'health nutritionists' are a worse healthrisk.A meadia system, working under the direct supervision of the radical marxists, and the radical marxists are a threat...

The 450,000,000 rounds of ammunition they have purchased for Homeland Security are a major health risk.

Now...There are somewhat substantiated rumours that Obama has set up areas either to train an independent militia, or concentration camps...

I propose, putting all the skinny people*, health nuts, wacko dietitians, Homeland security, lying reporters, administration flunkies, etc... Into those camps, give the ammo to the NRA and let them monitor the camps...

Only the most sadistic and prurient TSA agents will be held aside to be Camp Guards....

Most of the problems would be solved.

Impractical, Imperical and un-American as hell... So were the proposed Detainees, for the most part.

*(Skinny people exempted... They Really should be put on a Jack in the Box Diet, instead)

This is humor, mad dogs... If you don't see that, don't read it...hehehe (You think I might have put that at the top?)

PS: Forgive me, but, I have lusted in my heart for the Ariel Atom 500BHP model

primary electric cars have a very limited consumer base. People who shouldn't buy them...apartment renters, condo owners, college students, people who live in rural areas, people who live in mountainous regions, people who travel or use their car for a living,

This is a random talk that makes no sense. You list many groups of people that are actually prime candidates for an electric car. I for one live in a rural area and commute to the city....in a Nissan Leaf. But actually people who live in a city can do very well with electric cars if the infrastructure is there i.e. a power outlet in your parking lot at work parking garage or in the one under your apartment building.

At the end of the day all you have to is take a realistic look at what your daily travel habits are, total up the daily milage and caclulate if the vehicle range gets you back to charging point. If you, do well, its a car you can use to save money, particularly if you rack up steady milage. Most Americans commute 40 miles a day or less. Cars like the the Leaf have a range of 150+ miles.

But then again we are country where everyone lives under the delusion that they will drive Route 66 end to end every day and thus "must" have a huge vehicle with 250 hp V6 engine at a minimum.

They also live under the delusion that the internal combustion vehicles and their fuel are not subsidised. Yes they are. And you pay for it - in both cash and the health of thousands of city kids who end up asthmatic.

Some dangerous delusions for society as a whole.

As for hybrids, they are better than existing cars, but ultimately the real reason they are being peddled is not that electrics suck, but rather that the car industry as a whole is gigantically invested in the apparatus of building, selling and servicing internal combustion engines. So rather than move forward, they are trying to move sideways with hybrids, hoping to manage down revolution into a tame evolution.

I am curious. How many ppl will wait 1 hour at a charging station to fill the "tank". Also, refilling about every 3 days... does that sound viable to ppl?

Just like my cell phone, I would charge my electric car every night. Lithium does not like to be completely drained (though fully charged isn't good either which is why some manufacturers (Nissan, I think) don't use 20% of the battery capacity; so if you're frequently charging in that middle 80%, it won't hurt.) Then, you have the full range for use that day. 70 miles range (with optimum usage) probably is not enough which is why they need bigger (more costly) batteries. I'm thinking of buying a Leaf but would only do so if I could manage to use it without plugging in during the day (but would charge nightly).

argamond wrote:

I do about 600km (370mi) a week. A 70 mile capacity (less with lights, a/c) is a lot of time spent charging

A seriously 'GREEN' device, including a car, does not use any non-renewable or carbon fuels.

Clue: Plugging in your electric car does not mean you're off the non-green fuels. Does it?!

The same situation applies to hydrogen fuel cells. What energy source generated the hydrogen? Was it carbon fuel? If so, what's the point?

Why is it so difficult to consider where the electricity for your car comes from? Hmm? Is that too difficult a concept? In the USA electricity usually is generated from COAL and NATURAL GAS, neither of which remotely qualify as green. Is this getting through? Can you hear me now?

Then toss in the fact that you lose energy efficiency when you separate the carbon fuel from the actual car engine. That's right! You have to burn MORE carbon fuels to actually drive your carbon fuel based 'electric' car vs driving a direct carbon fuel car. Isn't that infuriating? The oil and gas companies LOVE IT! They're dancing with money lusting glee at everyone's ignorance.

Any actual GREEN solution, including an actual 'green' car, uses an electricity source that is entirely renewable and non-carbon. That means you plug your car into an outlet that sources electricity from SOLAR or WIND or HYDRAULIC or GEOTHERMAL, etc. That is actually 'GREEN'. No carbon fuels allowed. That is the goal.

Yeah, but then you have to actually BUILD the renewable energy collection system, and that is typically going to require carbon fuels or carbon resources for plastic and lubricating oil, etc. That's not quite a Catch-22 because once the energy collection system is built, the actual GREEN benefits begin. That is the path.

]In addition to being a teetotaler and a non-smoker,[1] Adolf Hitler has been regarded by historians as a vegetarian.[2] It has been theorized that Hitler's diet may have been based on Richard Wagner's historical theories[3] which connected the future of Germany with vegetarianism.[4] Hitler may have believed that a vegetarian diet could both alleviate personal health problems and bring about a spiritual regeneration.

Is interesting, since Hitler, and the left, occupy the same position on the political scale (he was a Socialist)

Now... Since his Mercedes was just sold to a person that was not aware it was once owned by Hitler (fulfilling the car part of this thread)...

Who, in the last hundred years, started as a rabble rouser, was a radical socialist, used union thugs to beat, threaten and intimidate innocent people that did not support him, set races of people against each other, as a goal of establishing a radical upheaval, politically, in the country they ended up leading?

Any actual GREEN solution, including an actual 'green' car, uses an electricity source that is entirely renewable and non-carbon. That means you plug your car into an outlet that sources electricity from SOLAR or WIND or HYDRAULIC or GEOTHERMAL, etc. That is actually 'GREEN'. No carbon fuels allowed. That is the goal.

As to Wind and Solar Solutions:

For now, they have problems, particularly Wind (Solar requires some sort of storage for non-solar hours (like night). Wind problems, though all were predicted and ignored, to this point:

1) Too often, the wind is either not strong enough, or too strong (both cause problems. 2) Predicting the Correct wind speed, is difficult (28-45 MPH, if my upper limit is correct)3) Below 28 MPH, the wind is too weak to properly be effective.4) The noise of most of the blades is so noisy above 28 MPH, near-by residents and businesses are becoming successful at having laws enacted to either throttle them down (governor) or stopped, above 27 MPH (see #3)5) Maintenance costs of the Windmill, if I may be so bold as to call them that) when they are as large as they have been getting, is resulting in them becoming eyesores, since they are not in use and falling into disrepair in many places.

You did leave out tidal generators, such as the massive financial flop and lies in Brittain... Photoshop has made hundreds more turbines than were installed, and, many that were installed are not working, and funding has been removed

But then again we are country where everyone lives under the delusion that they will drive Route 66 end to end every day and thus "must" have a huge vehicle with 250 hp V6 engine at a minimum.

Or the "delusion" that they have a lot of stuff to haul around.

The US surely must have world record levels of people driving full size V8 SUVs and pickups who never have anything more than groceries in them.

This Mitsubishi is a small micro car, but electric cars are viable in any number of sizes. Nissan is building a factory in Spain to do an electric minivan oriented at the handyman/small business segment, or example.

In the city a bike and /or public transportation takes care of 90% of stuff. For the rest zip car or taxi.The percentage may vary depending on your situation but it's hard to make an argument for owning a car in the city.